Literature DB >> 18829476

Validation of biomarker-based risk prediction models.

Jeremy M G Taylor1, Donna P Ankerst, Rebecca R Andridge.   

Abstract

The increasing availability and use of predictive models to facilitate informed decision making highlights the need for careful assessment of the validity of these models. In particular, models involving biomarkers require careful validation for two reasons: issues with overfitting when complex models involve a large number of biomarkers, and interlaboratory variation in assays used to measure biomarkers. In this article, we distinguish between internal and external statistical validation. Internal validation, involving training-testing splits of the available data or cross-validation, is a necessary component of the model building process and can provide valid assessments of model performance. External validation consists of assessing model performance on one or more data sets collected by different investigators from different institutions. External validation is a more rigorous procedure necessary for evaluating whether the predictive model will generalize to populations other than the one on which it was developed. We stress the need for an external data set to be truly external, that is, to play no role in model development and ideally be completely unavailable to the researchers building the model. In addition to reviewing different types of validation, we describe different types and features of predictive models and strategies for model building, as well as measures appropriate for assessing their performance in the context of validation. No single measure can characterize the different components of the prediction, and the use of multiple summary measures is recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18829476      PMCID: PMC3896456          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  34 in total

1.  On the misuses of artificial neural networks for prognostic and diagnostic classification in oncology.

Authors:  G Schwarzer; W Vach; M Schumacher
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-02-29       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Assessing prostate cancer risk: results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

Authors:  Ian M Thompson; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Chen Chi; Phyllis J Goodman; Catherine M Tangen; M Scott Lucia; Ziding Feng; Howard L Parnes; Charles A Coltman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-04-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Survival model predictive accuracy and ROC curves.

Authors:  Patrick J Heagerty; Yingye Zheng
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Genomic signatures to guide the use of chemotherapeutics.

Authors:  Anil Potti; Holly K Dressman; Andrea Bild; Richard F Riedel; Gina Chan; Robyn Sayer; Janiel Cragun; Hope Cottrill; Michael J Kelley; Rebecca Petersen; David Harpole; Jeffrey Marks; Andrew Berchuck; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Phillip Febbo; Johnathan Lancaster; Joseph R Nevins
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2006-10-22       Impact factor: 53.440

5.  Signal in noise: evaluating reported reproducibility of serum proteomic tests for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Keith A Baggerly; Jeffrey S Morris; Sarah R Edmonson; Kevin R Coombes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-02-16       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  The use of genomics in clinical trial design.

Authors:  Richard Simon
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-10-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 7.  Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer.

Authors:  M H Gail; J P Costantino; J Bryant; R Croyle; L Freedman; K Helzlsouer; V Vogel
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-11-03       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  What do we mean by validating a prognostic model?

Authors:  D G Altman; P Royston
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-02-29       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  External validation of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator in a screened population.

Authors:  Dipen J Parekh; Donna Pauler Ankerst; Betsy A Higgins; Javier Hernandez; Edith Canby-Hagino; Timothy Brand; Dean A Troyer; Robin J Leach; Ian M Thompson
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK).

Authors:  Lisa M McShane; Douglas G Altman; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube; Massimo Gion; Gary M Clark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  68 in total

1.  Serum biomarkers associated with baseline clinical severity in young steroid-naïve Duchenne muscular dystrophy boys.

Authors:  Utkarsh J Dang; Michael Ziemba; Paula R Clemens; Yetrib Hathout; Laurie S Conklin; Eric P Hoffman
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2020-08-29       Impact factor: 6.150

2.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.775

3.  Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.069

4.  External validity of risk models: Use of benchmark values to disentangle a case-mix effect from incorrect coefficients.

Authors:  Yvonne Vergouwe; Karel G M Moons; Ewout W Steyerberg
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08-31       Impact factor: 4.897

Review 5.  Bringing Model-Based Prediction to Oncology Clinical Practice: A Review of Pharmacometrics Principles and Applications.

Authors:  Núria Buil-Bruna; José-María López-Picazo; Salvador Martín-Algarra; Iñaki F Trocóniz
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2015-12-14

Review 6.  Statistical considerations on prognostic models for glioma.

Authors:  Annette M Molinaro; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins; Jeanette E Eckel-Passow
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 12.300

7.  Statistical and practical considerations for clinical evaluation of predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Boris Freidlin; Edward L Korn; Barbara A Conley; Jeffrey S Abrams; Lisa M McShane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Systematic analysis and validation of differential gene expression in ovarian serous adenocarcinomas and normal ovary.

Authors:  Dirk Bauerschlag; Karen Bräutigam; Roland Moll; Jalid Sehouli; Alexander Mustea; Darius Salehin; Maryla Krajewska; John C Reed; Nicolai Maass; Garret M Hampton; Ivo Meinhold-Heerlein
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 9.  Towards the automatic classification of neurons.

Authors:  Rubén Armañanzas; Giorgio A Ascoli
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 13.837

Review 10.  Genomic markers for decision making: what is preventing us from using markers?

Authors:  Vicky M Coyle; Patrick G Johnston
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-15       Impact factor: 66.675

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.